The left is going bonkers over GOP nominee Donald Trump’s suggestions to supporters to be actively alert to irregularities at polling locations this election day.“Make sure everything is on the up and up,” the Republican nominee said. “So go to your place and vote. And go pick some other place and go sit there with your friends and make sure it’s on the up and up. Because you know what, that’s a big, big problem in this country and nobody wants to talk about it.”
Democrats and their media have all transformed Trump’s suggestions for citizens to be active poll watchers into alleged attempts to intimidate voters — specifically, minority voters.
They’ve even made a federal case of the matter — literally — filing an emergency request with the U.S. Supreme court. However, today, on the eve of the election, the U.S. Supreme Court denied Democrats’ request.
As the Washington Times reports:The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday denied an emergency request by the Ohio Democratic Party to reinstate a lower court’s order that sought to bar Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump and his supporters from intimidating voters at the polls.
The ruling marks another victory for Republicans, who have fought off a series of lawsuits in at least seven states that were brought by Democrats in the homestretch of the presidential race.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote separately from the order that she voted to deny the request because Ohio law already forbids voter intimidation.Democrats filed the lawsuit in Ohio, alleging that the Trump campaign has sought to encourage supporters monitor polling places on Election Day and to act in ways that might intimidate voters.
Just have to ask, what about Trump’s statement suggests acting “in ways that might intimidate voters”?A federal judge sided Friday with Democrats and issued a temporary restraining order that prohibited both presidential campaigns from a variety of activities around polling places, including photographing prospective voters and their vehicles or interrogating or harassing voters inside polling places.
But in an order issued Sunday, a three-judge panel from the Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals stayed the lower court ruling, concluding that the Ohio Democratic Party “did not demonstrate before the district court a likelihood of success on the merits, and that all of the requisite factors weigh in favor of granting the stay.”
Today’s SCOTUS ruling comes on the heels of federal courts rejecting similar Democrat claims in other states.
Democrats have filed similar lawsuits in Arizona, Nevada, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Michigan.
Federal courts have already rejected claims filed in Arizona, Nevada and New Jersey.
Following a Monday hearing in the North Carolina lawsuit, the Associated Press reported that U.S. District Judge Catherine Eagles did not find evidence that Republicans and presidential candidate Donald Trump wanted supporters to intimidate North Carolina minority voters. However, the federal judge said she will keep an eye on what happens Tuesday and could consider sanctions there appears to be evidence of a coordinated effort to turn away voters in minority neighborhoods.
Cases brought in Pennsylvania and Michigan are still pending.
Now, I live in Minnesota, one of the states where voters can register on election day without an ID — just another registered voter “vouching” for them is all that’s required. And each voter can “vouch” for up to eight others.
Every election day, we have official trained election judges and — yes — poll watchers who are stationed inside the polling stations for the very purpose of keeping an eye on things to make sure things are on the “up and up.”
I have heard stories from trusted family and friends who have been officially on duty as poll watchers who have seen busloads of people being brought in to vote and being “vouched for” en masse. This is just one example of things that may not appear on the “up and up.” (Though, in fact, when one such friend of mine attempted to report it to largely Democrat election judges on site, they were aggressively dismissed — separate issue.)
No one — certainly not Trump and his campaign — are suggesting intimidation of voters of any kind. How does simply observing — keeping one’s eyes open and alert to irregular activity — “intimidate” or “suppress” voters? If you’ve got nothing to hide, who cares who’s watching? Unless they mean, perhaps, it suppresses illegal voters — who indeed might be hindered by observers watching for improper activity.
Kinda like requiring a photo ID might “suppress” the same type of voters — voters who are in fact not eligible, which is a nice way of saying illegal.
But, as usual, the left wraps this all up in a cloak of a “minority issue” so as to suggest anyone who opposes them is racist.
[This article was written by Michelle Jesse, Associate Editor]